[D&D5/PF2/etc] Are there too many lessons now?

Team FunTrove

September 5, 2022

[D&D5/PF2/etc] Are there too many lessons now?

[ad_1]

This is a web site for discussing roleplaying video games. Have enjoyable doing so, however there’s one main rule: don’t talk about political points that are not straight and uniquely associated to the topic of the thread and about gaming. While this web site is devoted to free speech, the next won’t be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political dialogue, sockpuppeting (utilizing a number of and/or bogus accounts), disrupting subjects with out contributing to them, and posting photographs that would get somebody fired within the office (an exterior hyperlink is OK, however clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you obtain a warning, please take it critically and both transfer on to a different subject or steer the dialogue again to its authentic RPG-related theme.

Author
Topic: [D&D5/PF2/etc] Are there too many lessons now? (Read 935 occasions)

The recreation I play has 6 lessons: Berserker, Knight, Mystic, Rogue, Warrior, Wizard. With these six lessons we are able to construct the equal of any third or fifth version class or status class. The massive factor for D&D is that plenty of lessons have entry to a small quantity of magic (just like the Paladin). Building generic entry to magic for ANY class (like a Rogue that desires to be taught invisibility) is the easiest way to be sure that a small variety of lessons can cowl the widest number of ‘archetypes’.

For us, every of these lessons approaches fight in a singular means – the Berserker will get further injury when Raging, whereas the Rogue will get further injury by Sneaking or making the most of somebody that’s engaged by 2+ different individuals (Sneak Attack) – and we give class skills which are particular and useful in that function. Any different skills exterior of the category are selectable. If you need to be a Ranger, you in all probability take Rogue or Warrior, then take an Animal Companion. If you need to be a Paladin, you are taking Knight, and you are taking ‘is aware of some spells’ as an alternative of (or along with) Animal Companion (for those who actually desire a mount).

So sure, I feel in the end, a small variety of versatile lessons is best. But then how will you promote extra books?

Berserker & Knight are subclasses of Warrior, identical to Barbarian is a background for Warrior/Fighter.

I take it that Mystic is the Cleric for edgy Atheists, whereas the Wizard is the Wizard.

So that system already has two Classes too many.

As for promoting extra books… Make good settings.

No. That’s principally utterly fallacious. The berserker will get rage whereas the knight will get Designate, and the Warrior will get particular skills that work when making assaults like Disarm and Trip. The cause they’re completely different lessons is that we’ve got very completely different mechanics that make them really feel completely different while you play.

A Mystic is by no means like a cleric. They’re extra like a Binder. Clerics are simply wizards that take therapeutic spells. Mystics have sure spirits that solid spells foe them. They’re a special class as a result of they’ve completely different mechanics that make them really feel completely different.

If we might make fewer lessons and keep their uniqueness, we might have. The greatest solution to be sure that individuals cannot choose skills like Sneak Attack and Rage is to make them mutually unique. By making it a part of the category, you possibly can’t double up.

Except you possibly can double up. There are loads of examples of cherry-picking ranges to get particular skills, in particular sequences, to offer stackable results that very possible had been by no means imagined throughout pre-pub play checks. This appears ridiculous in addition to diluting the flavour of every class.

For instance, clarify to me the way it makes any in-game sense to construct a personality with the next development: Fighter (tower defend specialist) -> alchemist (vivisectionist) -> monk -> fighter (4 ranges) -> rogue (thug) -> stalwart defender -> rogue (2 ranges) -> fighter (4 ranges) -> alchemist (2 ranges) -> fighter (2 ranges). This construct was designed for a single purpose: turning you right into a wall of metal.

That’s like saying “I’m an engineer physician lawyer truck driver barista professional athlete.” Even Buckaroo Banzai solely had 4 professions – and he needed to be a polymath to do it – and it wasn’t for a singular purpose.

Find a solution to forestall dipping of the toe to get particular skills, and also you won’t want to fret about all the lessons.

Logged

There are a full dozen lessons within the D&D5 participant ebook. While I do admire having choices for personalisation, I feel there are too many lessons now and most of them do not must be distinct lessons.

For instance, the sorcerer was solely added in third version due to the best way wizards solid spells. Wizards (in addition to clerics and druids) needed to put together all their spells/slots prematurely, whereas sorcerers might solid any spell identified with any appropriate spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now successfully solid spells like sorcerers do however can swap out their spells identified/ready. Without the unique mechanical distinction there’s actually no cause for sorcerers to exist past custom (and to be a dumping floor for spontaneous casters transformed from prior editions, just like the favored soul being tailored to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that “inherent reward magicians” are an idea that folks will need to play, however does it actually need its personal class and all these pressured dietary supplements for it?

The varied subclasses scrape the underside of the barrel in a short time in relation to ideas, particularly for any class past Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I actually suppose the metaclass framework from 2e (principally these 4 lessons I simply named) would’ve been very helpful right here. Or possibly one thing like Spheres of Power & Might.

What do you suppose?

Fuck, sure.

Beyond the preliminary 4, I can perceive having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades however Master of none. Otherwise they’re simply masturbatory mods of the preliminary 4.

Logged

“I don’t need to create a narrative, I need to create a stage. The participant characters will carry out on that stage and work together with the setting. When the gamers speak to their pals about what their characters did, then there shall be a narrative.”

If we might make fewer lessons and keep their uniqueness, we might have. The greatest solution to be sure that individuals cannot choose skills like Sneak Attack and Rage is to make them mutually unique. By making it a part of the category, you possibly can’t double up.

Rage and Sneak Attack are already mutually unique by advantage of you not having the ability to sneak round whereas foaming on the mouth with Rage. You might go so far as to declare which you can’t take any actions that require finesse or focus whereas raging, then that just about prevents you from sneak attacking flanked enemies whereas raging.

You additionally already cannot have each skills if the sport would not permit you to multiclass, which might be the one means that locking these skills behind completely different lessons would forestall individuals from having each, as your put up implies. Not that I care personally. As lengthy as you “pay” for them by some means I do not care what skills your character has. Splitting your ranges throughout completely different lessons could be a solution to “pay” for them. Turning these skills into Feats could be one other.

You might additionally deal with completely different class variants as Subclasses of a core class, which is what a Berserker basically is to a Warrior, conceptually talking.

Logged

There are a full dozen lessons within the D&D5 participant ebook. While I do admire having choices for personalisation, I feel there are too many lessons now and most of them do not must be distinct lessons.

For instance, the sorcerer was solely added in third version due to the best way wizards solid spells. Wizards (in addition to clerics and druids) needed to put together all their spells/slots prematurely, whereas sorcerers might solid any spell identified with any appropriate spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now successfully solid spells like sorcerers do however can swap out their spells identified/ready. Without the unique mechanical distinction there’s actually no cause for sorcerers to exist past custom (and to be a dumping floor for spontaneous casters transformed from prior editions, just like the favored soul being tailored to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that “inherent reward magicians” are an idea that folks will need to play, however does it actually need its personal class and all these pressured dietary supplements for it?

The varied subclasses scrape the underside of the barrel in a short time in relation to ideas, particularly for any class past Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I actually suppose the metaclass framework from 2e (principally these 4 lessons I simply named) would’ve been very helpful right here. Or possibly one thing like Spheres of Power & Might.

What do you suppose?

Fuck, sure.

Beyond the preliminary 4, I can perceive having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades however Master of none. Otherwise they’re simply masturbatory mods of the preliminary 4.

And the cleric may even be considered when it comes to a mix of the fighter and mage, offering a help function the place they’re not significantly good in any respect of these however ok to offer help (significantly magical therapeutic distinctive to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief

Logged

It solely feels synthetic as a result of it is the very same mechanic.

I disagree, Warrior, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard is completely positive.

I do agree that customization needs to be dealt with by subclasses, Backgrounds (abilities) AND FEATS, YES! FEATS!

Just ask Jaeger.

Just not the, ALSO bloated, mess of Skills and Feats 3.0 and 5e have.

I began a 5e marketing campaign/dungeon crawl with solely the 4 core lessons (Fi,Cl,Ro,Wi)and 4 core races(Hu,Dw,El,1/2) as a result of insane creep of each in 5e the place you would possibly as nicely be enjoying in Zootopia as an alternative of a fantasy realm. The discount of complexity results in the growth of Outside of the Box considering. Or as a few of you shade tree can say “Run with what ya brung”

The gamers can be taught that there’s a lot you are able to do with the “fundamentals” as an alternative of getting to go off into Tiefling Warlock or a Aaaroka Artificer with a view to obtain most potential.

Logged

NKL4Lyfe

There are a full dozen lessons within the D&D5 participant ebook. While I do admire having choices for personalisation, I feel there are too many lessons now and most of them do not must be distinct lessons.

For instance, the sorcerer was solely added in third version due to the best way wizards solid spells. Wizards (in addition to clerics and druids) needed to put together all their spells/slots prematurely, whereas sorcerers might solid any spell identified with any appropriate spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now successfully solid spells like sorcerers do however can swap out their spells identified/ready. Without the unique mechanical distinction there’s actually no cause for sorcerers to exist past custom (and to be a dumping floor for spontaneous casters transformed from prior editions, just like the favored soul being tailored to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that “inherent reward magicians” are an idea that folks will need to play, however does it actually need its personal class and all these pressured dietary supplements for it?

The varied subclasses scrape the underside of the barrel in a short time in relation to ideas, particularly for any class past Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I actually suppose the metaclass framework from 2e (principally these 4 lessons I simply named) would’ve been very helpful right here. Or possibly one thing like Spheres of Power & Might.

What do you suppose?

Fuck, sure.

Beyond the preliminary 4, I can perceive having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades however Master of none. Otherwise they’re simply masturbatory mods of the preliminary 4.

And the cleric may even be considered when it comes to a mix of the fighter and mage, offering a help function the place they’re not significantly good in any respect of these however ok to offer help (significantly magical therapeutic distinctive to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief

The cleric is such a “would not actually match right into a field” idea. If we’re taking a look at it from the normal European medieval origin, then it is actually 3 various things – you have obtained your village vicar sorts making an attempt to maintain the individuals on the straight and slender whereas giving them one thing to stay up for; you have obtained your noble-born bishops who’re possible pious in title solely whereas juggling a hidden household and wheeling & dealing at court docket or jockeying for place to grow to be a cardinal; after which you will have the wandering holy man who can work miracles and grow to be canonized as a saint sorts. None of them actually match into the usual cleric. The “monk toiling away copying down manuscripts for 3 hots and a cot” would not even enter the image.

And that’s the case for just about *each* class. Sub lessons and kits and status lessons and archetypes exist within the varied iterations of D&D as a result of it’s a class-based system.

Break it aside and make *all the pieces* skill-based. Give “packages” if abilities at 1st stage to characterize the price of entry into the “class.” Then give that class a bucket of talent factors to choose from a really slender listing at each stage after that, with restrictions (not more than x factors in any one among these abilities). At that time, you actually solely want fear about how the packages are purchased and you do not have to fret in regards to the amount of lessons. I’d remove the distinction within the variety of abilities you may be proficient in primarily based upon class.

I’d additionally remove the completely different hit die by class and make it a operate of your STR and CON modified by Athletics. Why cannot there be a Wizard triathlete who’s in higher form than a beer-swilling barbarian? Or for that matter, recognizing that “barbarian” may be something from a viking to a pygmy headhunter – and their “skills” are vastly completely different.

« Last Edit: Today at 10:44:52 AM by 3catcircus »

Logged

There are a full dozen lessons within the D&D5 participant ebook. While I do admire having choices for personalisation, I feel there are too many lessons now and most of them do not must be distinct lessons.

For instance, the sorcerer was solely added in third version due to the best way wizards solid spells. Wizards (in addition to clerics and druids) needed to put together all their spells/slots prematurely, whereas sorcerers might solid any spell identified with any appropriate spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now successfully solid spells like sorcerers do however can swap out their spells identified/ready. Without the unique mechanical distinction there’s actually no cause for sorcerers to exist past custom (and to be a dumping floor for spontaneous casters transformed from prior editions, just like the favored soul being tailored to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that “inherent reward magicians” are an idea that folks will need to play, however does it actually need its personal class and all these pressured dietary supplements for it?

The varied subclasses scrape the underside of the barrel in a short time in relation to ideas, particularly for any class past Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I actually suppose the metaclass framework from 2e (principally these 4 lessons I simply named) would’ve been very helpful right here. Or possibly one thing like Spheres of Power & Might.

What do you suppose?

Fuck, sure.

Beyond the preliminary 4, I can perceive having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades however Master of none. Otherwise they’re simply masturbatory mods of the preliminary 4.

And the cleric may even be considered when it comes to a mix of the fighter and mage, offering a help function the place they’re not significantly good in any respect of these however ok to offer help (significantly magical therapeutic distinctive to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief

The cleric is such a “would not actually match right into a field” idea. If we’re taking a look at it from the normal European medieval origin, then it is actually 3 various things – you have obtained your village vicar sorts making an attempt to maintain the individuals on the straight and slender whereas giving them one thing to stay up for; you have obtained your noble-born bishops who’re possible pious in title solely whereas juggling a hidden household and wheeling & dealing at court docket or jockeying for place to grow to be a cardinal; after which you will have the wandering holy man who can work miracles and grow to be canonized as a saint sorts. None of them actually match into the usual cleric. The “monk toiling away copying down manuscripts for 3 hots and a cot” would not even enter the image.

And that’s the case for just about *each* class. Sub lessons and kits and status lessons and archetypes exist within the varied iterations of D&D as a result of it’s a class-based system.

Break it aside and make *all the pieces* skill-based. Give “packages” if abilities at 1st stage to characterize the price of entry into the “class.” Then give that class a bucket of talent factors to choose from a really slender listing at each stage after that, with restrictions (not more than x factors in any one among these abilities). At that time, you actually solely want fear about how the packages are purchased and you do not have to fret in regards to the amount of lessons. I’d remove the distinction within the variety of abilities you may be proficient in primarily based upon class.

I’d additionally remove the completely different hit die by class and make it a operate of your STR and CON modified by Athletics. Why cannot there be a Wizard triathlete who’s in higher form than a beer-swilling barbarian? Or for that matter, recognizing that “barbarian” may be something from a viking to a pygmy headhunter – and their “skills” are vastly completely different.

Congratsbyou simply got here up with the thought of a talent primarily based recreation. They’ve been round for a very long time although and a few individuals choose the category primarily based video games.

Logged

There are a full dozen lessons within the D&D5 participant ebook. While I do admire having choices for personalisation, I feel there are too many lessons now and most of them do not must be distinct lessons.

For instance, the sorcerer was solely added in third version due to the best way wizards solid spells. Wizards (in addition to clerics and druids) needed to put together all their spells/slots prematurely, whereas sorcerers might solid any spell identified with any appropriate spell slot. As of 5e, wizards (and clerics and druids) now successfully solid spells like sorcerers do however can swap out their spells identified/ready. Without the unique mechanical distinction there’s actually no cause for sorcerers to exist past custom (and to be a dumping floor for spontaneous casters transformed from prior editions, just like the favored soul being tailored to the divine soul sorcerous origin). I get that “inherent reward magicians” are an idea that folks will need to play, however does it actually need its personal class and all these pressured dietary supplements for it?

The varied subclasses scrape the underside of the barrel in a short time in relation to ideas, particularly for any class past Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. I actually suppose the metaclass framework from 2e (principally these 4 lessons I simply named) would’ve been very helpful right here. Or possibly one thing like Spheres of Power & Might.

What do you suppose?

Fuck, sure.

Beyond the preliminary 4, I can perceive having Bard as a Jack-of-all-Trades however Master of none. Otherwise they’re simply masturbatory mods of the preliminary 4.

And the cleric may even be considered when it comes to a mix of the fighter and mage, offering a help function the place they’re not significantly good in any respect of these however ok to offer help (significantly magical therapeutic distinctive to them). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief

The cleric is such a “would not actually match right into a field” idea. If we’re taking a look at it from the normal European medieval origin, then it is actually 3 various things – you have obtained your village vicar sorts making an attempt to maintain the individuals on the straight and slender whereas giving them one thing to stay up for; you have obtained your noble-born bishops who’re possible pious in title solely whereas juggling a hidden household and wheeling & dealing at court docket or jockeying for place to grow to be a cardinal; after which you will have the wandering holy man who can work miracles and grow to be canonized as a saint sorts. None of them actually match into the usual cleric. The “monk toiling away copying down manuscripts for 3 hots and a cot” would not even enter the image.

And that’s the case for just about *each* class. Sub lessons and kits and status lessons and archetypes exist within the varied iterations of D&D as a result of it’s a class-based system.

Break it aside and make *all the pieces* skill-based. Give “packages” if abilities at 1st stage to characterize the price of entry into the “class.” Then give that class a bucket of talent factors to choose from a really slender listing at each stage after that, with restrictions (not more than x factors in any one among these abilities). At that time, you actually solely want fear about how the packages are purchased and you do not have to fret in regards to the amount of lessons. I’d remove the distinction within the variety of abilities you may be proficient in primarily based upon class.

I’d additionally remove the completely different hit die by class and make it a operate of your STR and CON modified by Athletics. Why cannot there be a Wizard triathlete who’s in higher form than a beer-swilling barbarian? Or for that matter, recognizing that “barbarian” may be something from a viking to a pygmy headhunter – and their “skills” are vastly completely different.

Congratsbyou simply got here up with the thought of a talent primarily based recreation. They’ve been round for a very long time although and a few individuals choose the category primarily based video games.

I’m probably not referring to Rolemaster type skill-based video games. I’m referring to creating D&D’s lessons much less inflexible and extra customizable as a way of eliminating the necessity for extra lessons.

Logged

[ad_2]

Author Topic: [D&D5/PF2/etc] Are there too many lessons now? (Read 935 occasions)

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Author
Topic: [D&D5/PF2/etc] Are there too many lessons now? (Read 935 occasions)